‘Protect in haste, invent at leisure’ is a sarcastic statement to subtly depict the dismal state of the present regime of patent laws. A regime that was intended to balance the societal interests with that of private individual interests has undergone a sea change over the years, with the general tendency being to cater the least for the latter. Individual firms and applicants, in general, have used the lacunas in the law to their advantage and developed a mechanism whereby the patent granted to inventions (some, being undeserving of patent protection) are so wide in ambit, that the same leaves no scope for technological innovations and competition in the particular area where the former invention belonged.
Having said this, it would also be patently incorrect to assume that broad patents should be avoided at all times and that patents should always be narrow in nature. Both broad and narrow patents have their significance, the authorities need to realize this and judicially limit the breadth of patents in specific case instances. The economic rationales behind the law of patent infringement warrants due consideration and analysis.
The paper is thus an endevour to comprehend the issue primarily from the aspect of economic theories, which founded the patent regime and the laws as regards infringement claims.

Disclaimer: NISCAIR assumes no responsibility for the statements and opinions advanced by contributors. The editorial staff in its work of examining papers received for publication is helped, in an honorary capacity, by many distinguished engineers and scientists.